How carefully have you reviewed the family law court order in your divorce?

When Jennifer Lopez met and decided to marry George DeJongh, she had three children.

But this isn't a story about Jennifer and George. No, this post is about the children's paternal grandparents, Gary and Cathleen Miller. You see the children's father was Brian Miller.

Mother Ignores Divorce Decree

Jennifer and Brian had divorced in 2007, and their settlement agreement included these provisions:

Jennifer and Brian would share joint custody.

Neither party would move out of Los Angeles County without the consent of the other ex-spouse.

Jennifer would allow her children to visit with Brian Miller's parents for "extended" visits. Those visits would initially include a reunification counselor and take place on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, at least initially. Then there would be a hearing in 2008 to review the grandparents' progress in reunifying with the children

Instead of complying with the provision for the grandparents' visitation schedule, Jennifer took the children to Mexico. The FBI became involved in their disappearance and in August of 2011, Mexican authorities released Jennifer and the children to the Millers at the US/Mexican border.

It wasn't long after the U.S Supreme Court voted in favor of same-sex marriage throughout the country that a similar battle brewed in Texas: the right to divorce.

Angelique Naylor and Sabina Daly, both from Texas, married in 2004 in the state of Massachusetts.

The union didn't last long.

Same-Sex Couple Seeks Divorce in the Lone-Star State

Just a few years later, Naylor filed for divorce. It was complicated not just because they were gay but because they were raising a child and operating a business together.

Had they continued to live in Massachusetts, securing a divorce would have been easy. But they were from Texas and the state's position at the time was that there could only be a marital union between a man and a woman. Since same-sex marriage wasn't legal, women couldn't be divorced.

Ironically, it was Daly who argued the position that divorce was impossible.

The state court granted the divorce noting that the record stipulated that the judgment "is intended to be a substitute for . . . a valid and subsisting divorce," and "is intended to dispose of all economic issues and liabilities as between the parties whether they [are] divorced or not."

It's amazing how quickly a romantic marriage proposal aboard a loved one's yacht can sink into a morass of reprisals these days.

What caused the dramatic turn of events in this seemingly storybook tale of two star-crossed lovers?

I can answer that question with just one eight-letter word: Facebook.

The nasty voicemail messages didn't help either.

Storybook Marriage Ends in Bitter Divorce

After the proposal, the couple married, moved to a home worth $2 million and had two children.

It was as much a fairytale affair as any story you'd find in a book. The thrill lasted just three years.

Several years following the dramatic proposal, Max Walker filed a restraining order against Rebecca Vowles for calling him a fraudster - among other monikers - on Facebook.

Rebecca also pleaded guilty to harassment for her social media posts and nasty voicemail messages.

In a series of voicemail messages, Rebecca had accused her husband of foul play and questioned his parenting skills. She also accused her husband and his business partner of misdeeds and called Max a lying scumbag.

Her recriminations didn't stop there. She called him more names and made additional accusations against him on the phone.

Then she turned up the volume on her verbal assaults and continued her rants on Facebook.

But things change with time and in the end they brought life to this often heard quote in legal circles: "... in criminal cases you see bad people at their best and in custody cases you see good people at their worst."

That truism applies to the case I'm about to share. Here's this couple's story.

Military Duty Interferes with Child Visitation Schedules

Jane and Christopher had two children, born in 2002 and 2006. Following the birth of the second child, the couple separated and three years later divorced.

At the time, Christopher was a military pilot stationed in Hawaii.

He and his ex-wife signed a marital agreement that provided for joint legal custody. However, due to Christopher's career, a family court commissioner assigned him 8 percent physical custody with the remaining 92 percent allotted to the mother.

The agreement specifically stated, "If [Father] has an opportunity to spend more time with the boys, it is encouraged."

Military Dad Deployed to The Middle East

What happened next is a common occurrence since the start of the wars in the Middle East.

The service deployed Christopher in a medevac unit in Iraq and Afghanistan - and redeployed two more times.

With the new assignment, it became more difficult for the father to enjoy his children during summer vacations.

Three years after signing the marital agreement, the mother received permission from the court to move to California to live with her fiancé.

Then in 2013, the military transferred Christopher to Alabama where he lived with his new wife. To see his sons, he registered the marital agreement with the court in Orange County.

In March of 2012, the maternal grandparents - guardians of the children - filed an action to terminate the ex son-in-law's parental rights. Coincidentally, that same month the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the father's murder conviction.

In June 2014, the grandparents filed an amended petition to adopt the children. In light of the murder conviction, their decision made sense.

Four months later, a court terminated the father's parental rights even though the father asked the judge to delay a decision until after his appeal hearing, which was scheduled to start in December.

This year, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho overturned the murder conviction based on the fact that a district judge wrongly excluded evidence that would have corroborated the father's testimony proclaiming his innocence.

In addition, the court overturned a lower court's decision to terminate his parental rights.

There is a benefit to filing for bankruptcy, especially if you are retired.

What could that be? The bankruptcy process will protect your retirement assets.

The Stigma of Bankruptcy Among Retirees

What filing for bankruptcy won't do, however, is protect you from the sense of stigma that some can feel. But knowing that you are no longer under the burden of mounting debt and harassment from creditors can - hopefully - help to relieve some of those feelings.

What can happen, especially among retirees, is a downward spiral as elderly parents attempt to cope with medical expenses in addition to helping adult children by spending retirement assets.

This can send some retirees into an ominous financial decline.

Before Filing for Bankruptcy, Negotiate with Creditors

It's always best to try to negotiate with creditors prior to filing for bankruptcy. Without initiating a negotiation process, you'll never know what type a settlement the creditor would've allowed.

And even though creditors may take some people to court, those creditors cannot touch your retirement assets - despite what they may threaten.

You fall in love, you move in together and instead of having children you decide to create embryos together.

It's not the typical storybook progression, is it?

So what happens when a live-in couple who share embryos split up? The answer can be complicated especially if you have the kind of money that Sofia Vergara - the highest-paid TV actress who also has hefty endorsements and a product line - and Florida businessman Nick Loeb have.

The once "it couple," who apparently signed legal papers promising not to pursue the embryos if they split up, are having a disagreement.

Vergara vs Loeb

Sofia has definitely moved on. These days, she is sporting a 7-carat diamond ring from her fiancé and beau of the past year.

However, Loeb is focused on the embryos. In fact, he would like to bring the embryos to term with another woman.

He feels strongly about this issue and raised an interesting issue in a recent New York Times op-ed piece:

"A woman is entitled to bring a pregnancy to term even if the man objects. Shouldn't a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects?"

Loeb, who is half Jewish, baptized Episcopalian and was raised with a Catholic nanny, believes that life begins at conception. Therefore, he reasons that embryos are human beings and cannot be destroyed or left frozen forever.

To bring the embryos to life, Loeb would need to either use a surrogate or have the embryos implanted in a significant other. It's unclear what his plans are.

When do adoptive parents lose the right to continue to raise the children they adopt?

The answer is simple: when they abuse the privilege of raising children. Or in the case of the adoptive parents of a child identified simply as T.H., once the authorities discover that the adopted father was sexually abusing the girl.

It's a horribly sad case.

When T.H. was just three years of age, the courts terminated the parental rights of the girl's mother. It took just one year for another couple to come forward to adopt the girl.

15-Year-Old Girl Reveals History of Sexual Abuse

By the time T.H. was 15, she bravely stepped forward and disclosed that the father had been sexually abusing her since she was five or six years of age.

When the court set its process in motion, the adoptive parents backed down and agreed to the termination of parental rights. T.H. filed a petition to reinstate the parental rights of her biological mother.

At first, the state objected to the grill's petition arguing that there was one element of the statute that had not yet been met. The trial court agreed, and the state entered an order denying the application.

There was an appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which reversed the decision.

T.H. was able to proceed thanks to a fairly new law passed in 2009 by the Oklahoma legislature.

How many people interview their prospective in-laws about homosexuality, climate change, or corporal punishment?

I suspect very few people. Yet when a marriage falls apart, and the grandparents come knocking at your door with a summons looking for unsupervised visitation, what are the red flags that prevent you from trusting your ex-in-laws with your precious child?

And how do you battle that out in court?

Grandparents Arrive with a Summons

This is what happened to Kristin Glueckert after she separated from her husband, Thayer Glueckert.

She and Thayer got married, had a son and while Thayer was still on active duty in the military outside of their home state of Montana, the couple separated.

What would you do if you separated from your ex, remained busy working and raising a son as a single parent and then your ex-in-laws started to demand unsupervised visitation with your only child?

In Kristin's case, her son had lived with her since birth and Thayer would see his son whenever he was home on leave.

Unhappy with the supervised visits, the grandparents suddenly decided they wanted to be able to visit with the grandson without having to see the ex-daughter-in-law.

Specifically, they wanted four, three-hour unsupervised visits per week and additional unsupervised visits on special occasions throughout the year.

Just when you think a child custody issue is resolved, something happens.

As usual, two people fell in love, married, and had a beautiful child in 2006. But three years later the parents filed for divorce.

Although the parents lived in Wyoming, California was the child's home state at the time of the divorce. Therefore, the custody issues were litigated in California.

During Custody Battle Mother Takes Child to Norway

Before the court had an opportunity to make a determination of child custody, the mother decided to take her child outside of United States to her native Norway. She did not seek the father's consent before making the trip.

It wasn't the mother's best decision.

Father Pursues Case Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Production

Under this scenario, the father's only recourse was to proceed under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Production. The process sounds complicated, right?

Despite the complications, the father was successful in having his child returned to the United States. Then the family returned to California to settle the child custody issue. Needless to say, the mother's action did not help her custody battle.

A number of hearings ensued on issues of custody, visitation, and child support.

In fact, a California court ordered that the father have sole legal and physical custody of his child. The court also noted that the parties stipulated "this is a final and permanent termination of custody."

When I first read the headline and summary of this case, I wondered why a court would prohibit parents from homeschooling their children.

I thought to myself, "This would never fly in California."

Then I downloaded the court decision, and I understood the deeper issues involved in this very sad case. Prepare yourself.

Superficially, the case is about whether a parent has a right to home-school her children.
The deeper facts of the case are very different, however.

State of Nebraska Places Daughters in Custody Due to Physical Abuse

Three years ago, the state of Nebraska asked the juvenile court to place two children - Cassandra and Moira - in temporary custody with the state's Department of Health and Human Services.

Apparently, a county sheriff reported that Cassandra, who was just 13, was forced to sleep in a tent outside of the home even when the temperature was a cool 55 degrees. After she attempted to leave the tent to enter the warmer home, her uncle forced her back into the tent and zip-tied it shut.

The child attempted to escape again, so the mother turned on a water hose, which the uncle used to spray the girl. Then the uncle used rope to tie around the girl's wrists.

When two people marry, have children and then file for divorce, what do you think one of the most contested issues can be?

Here's the answer: anything and everything having to do with children. Custody, child support payments, and child visitation can be among the most contested and emotional issues two ex-spouses fight over and file appeals over.

With Both Parents Incarcerated, Who Takes Care of the Children?

Take the case of Martin Olsen and Dixie Jackson.

While Dixie was in jail, her ex-husband cared for the couple's children. During this time, child services were commencing a reunification program with the father as the custodial parent.

Then the father slipped.

Police arrested and incarcerated him after charging him with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. So the Utah Division of Child and Family Services stepped in and placed the two children in foster care.

When the case came before a judge, the Division of Child and Family Services recommended the court terminate the reunification process with the children.

Doesn't it appear as though I'm writing a lot about child custody issues of late? You're right.

It's because child custody issues can be the most emotionally contested issues in a divorce. And there are simply too many cases where parents are unable to provide the care - and address the needs of - the children they bring into the world.

In addition, it can be difficult to revoke custody from an ex-spouse.

Mother Gives Birth to Premature Twins

In this particular case I about to discuss, two premature twins were born on October 3, 2013. Just six days later, the Department of Health and Human Services petitioned for a child protection order. The department felt that the babies were at "risk of serious harm based on the mother's affliction of fatal injuries to the parents' adopted son" earlier that year.

In addition, there was an allegation that the father had inflicted serious bruising to the son just two days before he died.

Needless to say, the court granted the department's petition. When the twins were released from the neonatal intensive care unit, they were immediately put into foster care.